See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348348058

Methods for Regulating and Monitoring Resistance Training

Article in Journal of Human Kinetics · August 2020

DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2020-0011

CITATIONS READS

20 1,531

6 authors, including:

Eric R Helms John Cronin

Auckland University of Technology Auckland University of Technology
108 PUBLICATIONS 2,751 CITATIONS 438 PUBLICATIONS 19,596 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Adam Storey Michael C Zourdos

Auckland University of Technology Florida Atlantic University
55 PUBLICATIONS 1,164 CITATIONS 145 PUBLICATIONS 2,741 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eric R Helms on 12 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Human Kinetics volume 74/2020, 23-42 DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2020-0011 23
Resistance Training in Health and Sports Performance

Methods for Regulating and Monitoring Resistance Training

by
Eric R. Helms , Kedric Kwan , Colby A. Sousa1, John B. Cronin1,2, Adam G. Storey1,
1 1

Michael C. Zourdos3

Individualisation can improve resistance training prescription. This is accomplished via monitoring or
autoregulating training. Autoregulation adjusts variables at an individualised pace per performance, readiness, or
recovery. Many autoregulation and monitoring methods exist; therefore, this review’s objective was to examine
approaches intended to optimise adaptation. Up to July 2019, PubMed, Medline, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and CINAHL
were searched. Only studies on methods of athlete monitoring useful for resistance-training regulation, or
autoregulated training methods were included. Eleven monitoring and regulation themes emerged across 90 studies.
Some physiological, performance, and perceptual measures correlated strongly (r ≥ 0.68) with resistance training
performance. Testosterone, cortisol, catecholamines, cell-free DNA, jump height, throwing distance, barbell velocity,
isometric and dynamic peak force, maximal voluntary isometric contractions, and sessional, repetitions in reserve-
(RIR) based, and post-set Borg-scale ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were strongly associated with training
performance, respectively. Despite strong correlations, many physiological and performance methods are logistically
restrictive or limited to lab-settings, such as blood markers, electromyography or kinetic measurements. Some practical
performance tests such as jump height or throw distance may be useful, low-risk stand-ins for maximal strength tests.
Performance-based individualisation of load progression, flexible training configurations, and intensity and volume
modifications based on velocity and RIR-based RPE scores are practical, reliable and show preliminary utility for
enhancing performance.
Key words: autoregulation, strength, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), repetitions in reserve (RIR), velocity.

Introduction
The primary goal of monitoring and (Baker 2013) differences result in muscular
regulating resistance training is to more closely adaptations occurring at different magnitudes. In
match the intended training stress with readiness fact, those beginning the same resistance training
and recovery to optimize adaptation on an program may experience no increase in maximal
individual basis. However, there is a paucity of strength or hypertrophy while others may
research addressing the principle of increase muscle size by ~60% and increase
individualisation and subsequently the maximal strength by as much as 250% after a 12
understanding in this area is rudimentary (Kiely week period (Hubal et al., 2005). However,
2012). Individuals recover from resistance training despite the fact that genetic differences are
at different rates (McLester et al., 2003) and immutable, there is evidence that adaptation to
genetic (Timmons 2011), biological age (Lemmer training can be improved when program-design is
et al., 2000), menstrual cycle phase (Sarwar, tailored to the individual (Beaven, Cook, and Gill
Niclos, and Rutherford 1996), and training age 2008).

1 - Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
2 - School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.
3 - Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Muscle Physiology Laboratory, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,

FL.

Authors submitted their contribution to the article to the editorial board.

Accepted for printing in the Journal of Human Kinetics vol. 74/2020 in September 2020.
24
For advanced athletes, an effective resistance
training approach may require individualisation
based on the dynamic state of recovery and
performance of the athlete. According to Selye’s
General Adaptation Syndrome (1950), a stressor is
required for adaptation. However, to adapt to
stress, an individual must be able to recover,
which is impacted by outside stressors. In the
context of exercise, if a stressor is beyond the
capacity for adaptation (defined by Seyle as
“exhaustion”), improvements in performance can
cease or regress. The amount of time it takes for
positive adaptations to return and continue,
determines whether this regression was
considered non-functional overreaching (shorter
and less severe) or overtraining (longer and more
severe) (Meeusen et al., 2013). Factors such as
sleep (Bulbulian et al., 1996), nutrition (Helms et
al., 2015) and psychological stress (Bartholomew
et al., 2008) can all impact adaptation. Indeed,
those who experience more negative life stress
appear to gain less strength in response to
resistance training compared to their lower-stress
counterparts (Bartholomew et al., 2008). It is no
wonder numerous strength and conditioning
authors recommend some form of athlete
monitoring occur alongside a training plan to
ensure the predicted response to training occurs,
and if an unpredicted response occurs, training be
adjusted (Davison, et al., 2009; Lambert and
Borresen 2010).
Arguably, adjusting a plan based on how the
individual responds, how their needs change, and
how their ongoing state of readiness and recovery
shift should be a continual process to optimize
adaptation (Kiely 2012). Thus, a cornerstone skill
of the strength and conditioning practitioner is the
ability to make training adjustments in an
effective manner to reduce the frequency and
severity of injury, overtraining, and optimise the
rate and magnitude of adaptation. However, this
subjective aspect of athletic training largely falls
under “the art” rather than the science of strength
and conditioning and there is a learning curve for
novice practitioners. For this reason,
“autoregulation” is an intriguing area of study.
Autoregulation is described as training that
automatically adjusts to the athlete’s performance
to allow improvement at an individualised pace
to optimize adaptation (Mann et al., 2010). While
it is unlikely (and not necessarily desirable) that
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 74/2020
Monitoring Resistance Training
coaching input will ever be divorced from
training, if certain aspects of training regulation
can be automatically embedded in an objective
and systematic manner, this reduces the chance of
human error and allows for greater focus on the
elements of coaching requiring subjective decision
making.
With this preamble in mind, this narrative
review is a brief treatise of the various methods
for monitoring the state of the athlete for the
purpose of regulating resistance training. Such
tools include physiological, performance, and
psychological monitoring that provide
information before, during and after training. It is
hoped by the end of the article that the reader
understands the utility of the various methods
available to enhance their training prescription.
Additionally, this review identifies novel practices
in resistance training regulation deserving of
future exploration.
Methods
To inform this narrative review, PubMed,
Medline, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and CINAHL
electronic databases were searched online in
addition to hand and reference searching. Subject
area in the Scopus database was limited to
“medicine” and “health professions” with only
“articles”, “reviews” and “articles in press”
included in the search parameters. The search
string: (resistance OR strength OR weight) AND
training AND (autoregulat* OR auto-regulat* OR
auto regulat*) OR monitor* AND athlet* was used
for initial selection of manuscripts while limiting
database results to peer reviewed studies of
human subjects in English.
Once all manuscript records were obtained,
initial screening consisted of: (i) screening for
duplicates; (ii) screening titles for relevance; (iii)
screening the abstracts for relevance; (iv)
screening the full paper for inclusion criteria; and,
(v) reviewing the references of the included
papers to find any additional relevant
publications that were not included previously.
For a study to be included, the researchers must
have: either investigated methods of athlete
monitoring which were or could be used for
resistance-training regulation, or investigated a
training system or periodisation paradigm in
which training was autoregulated; and/or, defined
as an approach in which ongoing adjustments of a
http://www.johk.pl
by Helms ER et al.
training variable (i.e. frequency of training, load
selection, load progression, etc.) were
systematically embedded into a protocol. If any
papers were added that were found through
reference checking or manual searching, they
were subjected to the same screening process as if
they had been found in the initial database search.
Manuscripts that were not from peer reviewed
journals were excluded.
While the full breadth of the included
literature was reviewed and interpreted, some
quantitative data was tabulated to better inform
the reader. Specifically, correlations between
measures of resistance training performance and
monitoring variables were tabulated if the
correlations were of a “strong” value of 0.68
(Taylor 1990) or higher (studies with correlations
below this cut-off were not tabulated, but were
discussed qualitatively in the body of text).
Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were calculated
by determining the square root of coefficient of
determination scores (r2) when they were
reported rather than r scores. If r or r2 scores were
presented at multiple time points between the
same variables, the correlation was presented as ≥
to the lowest score. When correlational data was
presented in a case series, the mean correlation
from all participants was reported only for
relationships that were significant across all
participants.
This review is presented in a narrative format
due to the heterogenous nature of the included
methods, such that it would be inappropriate to
compare variables across studies. The purpose of
this review is to provide an overview of the body
of knowledge, avenues for future research, new
perspectives in training theory, and to establish a
framework for future experimental studies on
autoregulation in resistance training.
Results
A flow chart diagram of the search selection
process and articles included in this review is
shown in Figure 1. Upon viewing the included
articles, certain themes emerged which represent
the major sections within the discussion. The
major sections are organised by monitoring
method to include; physiological, perceptual, and
performance-based measures. For each major
section Tables 1, 2 and 3 respectively, display r
scores denoting the relationships between the
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
25
monitored variable/s and resistance training
performance (One Repetition Max [1RM], volume
performed, maximum repetitions performed, etc.)
reported. Additionally, sub-sections in each major
section are organised by specific categories of
physiological, performance and perceptual
monitoring variables where appropriate.
Physiological
Measuring the physiological status of an
athlete is a commonly recommended approach to
optimise future training (Davison et al., 2009).
Additionally, monitoring physiological markers is
a proposed method of detecting the presence of
non-functional overreaching or overtraining
(Meeusen et al., 2013). Depending on the time
needed to analyse the data collected,
physiological markers can theoretically be used to
predict readiness to train. Likewise, the data can
be analysed retrospectively to assess the
effectiveness of training, and the results can be
used to modify subsequent micro (e.g. daily -
weekly), meso (e.g. weeks - months) or
macrocycles (e.g. months – years) of training. This
section will cover studies that investigated
physiological responses that are performance
independent such as the various hormonal
biomarkers which may indicate adaptation and
recovery.
Hormonal biomarkers
Assessing the exercise-induced hormonal
response of an individual is a commonly used
method to quantify training stress in a research
setting. However, there are inherent difficulties
associated with using serum and/or plasma
hormones and other biochemical markers to
monitor and predict performance. The use of such
physiological indices requires expert laboratory
analysis that can be prohibitively costly if used on
a regular basis, and depending on how the
biological samples are collected, can be
inappropriately invasive for regular use. In
addition, due to the sample collection and
processing time, no immediate modification of
training variables can be performed based upon
the obtained results. Thus, while biochemical
analysis is a potential method of athlete
monitoring, these issues draw into question the
practicality of taking blood samples to assess
markers for recuperation and readiness to train.
That said, one potential method that avoids some
of these issues, is salivary hormone analysis
26
(Papacosta and Nassis 2011).
In one of the few studies of female athletes
meeting this review’s inclusion criteria, Cook and
colleagues (2013) reported the relationship
between pre-training salivary testosterone levels
and performance in 12 national netball players
with at least 3 years of structured and progressive
strength training experience. They reported that
salivary testosterone levels were significantly
related to relative voluntary workload in the back
squat (r2 = 0.45, p = 0.02) bench press (r2 = 0.70, p
< 0.001), and medicine ball throw distance (r2 =
0.50, p = 0.01). Nunes et al., (2011) reported
moderate correlations (r = 0.58 to 0.65, p = 0.02 to
0.05) between the change in salivary testosterone
and the change in half squat, bench press and
biceps curl 1RM among elite female basketball
players. Crewther and Cook (2010) observed a
similar trend in four male Olympic weightlifters,
noting their pre-workout salivary testosterone
concentrations significantly related to the snatch,
clean and jerk and Olympic total (r = 0.62 to 0.70,
p < 0.01 to 0.05). However, in the four female
lifters in this study there was no significant
relationship observed between pre-workout
salivary testosterone and performance in the
snatch or clean and jerk (r = 0.01 to 0.09)
(Crewther and Christian 2010). Similar research
has also been performed with elite rugby players
by Crewther and colleagues (2009). However
unlike the aforementioned studies, significant
relationships between testosterone and 1RM
strength and allometrically scaled strength were
not observed (Crewther et al., 2009). A potential
reason strong relationships between salivary
testosterone and strength are shown in some
studies while others show no relationship at all,
are differences in strength. It appears that when
segregated by squat strength (those ≤ 1.9x
bodyweight and those ≥ 2x bodyweight), stronger
athletes display a much higher correlation (r =
0.92, p < 0.01) between salivary testosterone and
1RM than weaker athletes (r = 0.35, p > 0.05)
(Crewther et al., 2012).
Beyond differences due to subject
characteristics, there is conflicting evidence
regarding the validity of salivary testosterone
analysis. While some reviews conclude that
salivary testosterone is a valid and reliable
representation of serum free testosterone levels
(Papacosta and Nassis 2011), not all research in
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 74/2020
Monitoring Resistance Training
this area is in agreement. Cadore and colleagues
(2008) reported very weak and non-significant
correlations between salivary and blood
testosterone (r = 0.22 to 0.26, p > 0.05). In another
study the authors reported free testosterone to be
very well represented by salivary testosterone
measures in men (r = 0.92, p < 0.001) (Arregger et
al., 2007). However, Youssef et al., (2010) reported
that this relationship was substantially weaker in
females (r = 0.52, p < 0.001). The inconsistent
findings on the validity of salivary testosterone
may be another reason for the reported
discrepancies for performance prediction in the
literature.
Unlike testosterone, salivary measures of
cortisol appear to be more consistently
representative of serum levels (Cadore et al., 2008;
Lippi et al., 2009; Papacosta and Nassis 2011). As
previously mentioned, while Crewther and
colleagues observed no significant relationships
between salivary testosterone and strength in elite
rugby players, relationships between
allometrically scaled box squat 1RM and salivary
cortisol (r = 0.69, p < 0.05) and allometrically
scaled and unscaled box squat 1RM with
testosterone to cortisol ratio were observed (r = -
0.62 to -0.73, p < 0.01 to 0.05). However, these
relationships appeared to be movement and
position dependent as they only reached
significance in backs but, not in forwards and
only in the box squat and not the bench press
(Crewther et al., 2009). McGuigan and colleagues
(2004) found that while volume load was not
related to salivary cortisol, the percentage change
in salivary cortisol levels was moderately
correlated (r = 0.54, p = 0.08) to squat 1RM relative
to bodyweight in resistance-trained males and
females. In contrast, changes in salivary cortisol
had a moderate negative relationship (r = -0.63, p
= 0.08) with front squat 1RM among male and
female weightlifters as reported by Crewther
(2010).
Beyond training, there are mixed results as to
the ability of salivary cortisol for predicting
competition performance in strength athletes.
Passelergue et al., (1995) found a moderately
strong correlation (r = 0.67, p < 0.05) between
competition performance and salivary cortisol
levels in male weightlifters, while Crewther (2011)
reported moderate correlations (r = 0.48 to 0.49, p
< 0.05) for the competition lifts in male and female
http://www.johk.pl
by Helms ER et al.
weightlifters during simulated competition,
which disappeared in actual competition.
Similarly, Le Panse (2010) found no significant
correlation between cortisol and competition
bench press results among male and female elite
powerlifters.
Overall, there appears to be a high level of
variability and inconsistency regarding the use of
pre and post workout levels of, changes in, and
the ratio between testosterone and cortisol as a
predictive tool to monitor and regulate
performance. In many cases, disparate results
between males and females (Crewther and
Christian 2010), athletes of different competitive
levels (Fry et al., 2000), athletes of different 1RM
strength level (Crewther et al., 2012), positions
within a sport (Crewther et al., 2009), actual
versus simulated competition (Crewther, Taati,
and Keogh 2011), exercises (Crewther et al., 2009)
and correlational direction (positive or negative)
(Crewther and Christian 2010; McGuigan, Egan,
and Foster 2004) are reported. Therefore, while
the invasiveness associated with blood collections
can be avoided by salivary measurements, the
time spent and expertise needed for analysis and
the variability between and within studies, draws
into question the practical utility of hormonal
analyses as a training monitoring tool. Overall,
the use of testosterone and the testosterone
cortisol ratio, in well-trained male athletes seems
to most consistently mirror training load or
predict performance; however, these markers may
also prove reliable in women with additional
study. Thus, if coaches can afford to collect these
markers, can establish their reliability, and have
the expertise and facilities to analyse them in a
time efficient manner, they could be used to
retrospectively assess the stimulus-recovery
balance of a training cycle to make adjustments to
subsequent training.
Muscle damage biomarkers
In addition to changes in hormonal
biomarkers, muscle damage is proposed as a
relevant biomarker for monitoring training (Baird
et al., 2012). However, markers of muscle damage
may be inappropriate in isolation as they cannot
provide information on a central fatigue (Fahey
1997). For example, creatine kinase (CK) is one of
the most commonly used biomarkers for muscle
damage; however, it is not truly representative of
exercise induced muscle damage as CK levels
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
27
may be influenced by various factors such as
ethnicity, hydration status and CK clearance rate
within the muscle itself (Baird et al., 2012).
While CK does moderately correlate (r = 0.45
to 0.55, p = 0.01 to 0.05) to the amount of
resistance training volume performed (Machado
et al., 2012), this correlation may not be indicative
of how much volume can or should be performed.
Specifically, the causative relationship between
adaptive skeletal muscle remodelling and muscle
damage is disputed (Damas et al., 2016).
Additionally, the repeated bout effect attenuates
the muscle damage response to exercise and is
impacted by the volume, contraction type,
familiarity with the exercise and frequency of its
performance (Zourdos et al., 2015). Recently,
Belcher and colleagues investigated the time
course recovery of the squat, bench press and
deadlift and found that despite the recovery of
peripheral CK and lactase dehydrogenase (LDH),
another proxy marker of muscle damage - acute
concentric velocity in the squat - remained
significantly decreased for 72 hours (Belcher et al.,
2019). The researchers also found that elevations
in cell-free DNA (cfDNa) were associated with
increases or attenuated rates of decline in average
concentric velocity (ACV) in the squat, bench
press and deadlift. However, the authors also
noted that additional studies are required as there
seems to be conflicting relationships between
cfDNa and ACV following resistance exercise
(Velders et al., 2014; Andreatta et al., 2018).
Therefore, muscle damage response may not be
appropriate for determining an optimal training
dose, as some of these factors are not necessarily
related to time course of recovery or adaptive
capacity.
There are a large number of muscle damage
biomarkers which can be measured (Brancaccio,
Lippi, and Maffulli 2010). However, there is
variability between studies, non-standardised
procedures, measurement confounders, and
unclear relationships between muscle damage
and performance. Further, the fact that cheaper
and easier to implement methods of subjective
monitoring appear to better mirror training loads,
suggests muscle damage markers at best have
utility for regulating resistance training only
when used alongside other monitoring methods
(Baird et al., 2012; Saw et al., 2016; Fahey 1997).
28 Monitoring Resistance Training

Figure 1
Search and selection process.

Table 1
Physiological correlations with resistance training performance.
Study Population Correlating variable Training variable r score
Cook et al., (2013) Elite F netball players Salivary T Bench press VL 0.84
Crewther et al., (2010) M weightlifters Salivary T SN 1RM 0.70
ISO leg extension %Δ after
Fry et al., (1994) Trained M Post-exercise E %Δ RT ≥ 0.90
ISO leg extension %Δ after
Post-exercise NE %Δ RT ≥ 0.94
Smith squat 1RM %Δ after
Post-exercise NE %Δ OT -0.72
T, free and total T/C Smith squat 1RM Δ after
Fry et al., (1998) Trained M ratio Δ OT -0.72
Pre-exercise T/C ratio SN + C&J 1RM %Δ after
Fry et al., (2000) Elite M weightlifters %Δ NV RT 0.92
Pre-exercise T/C ratio SN + C&J 1RM %Δ after
M weightlifters %Δ NV RT -0.71
Gonzalez-Badillo et al., Smith squat % velocity
(2017) Trained M T %Δ loss 0.70
Deadlift ACV 96 hours
Belcher et al., (2019) Trained M cfDNA post 0.69
M = male; F = female; T = testosterone; C = cortisol; E = epinephrine; NE = norepinephrine; ISO; isometric;
SN = snatch; C&J = clean and jerk; RT = resistance training; 1RM = 1-repetition maximum; VL = volume
load; OT = over training; NV = normal volume; cfDNA = cell-free DNA; ACV = average concentric velocity.

Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 74/2020 http://www.johk.pl

by Helms ER et al. 29

Table 2
Physical performance correlations with resistance training performance.
Study Population Correlating variable Training variable r score

Carlock et al., (2004) M weightlifters CMJ, SJ PP SN, C&J 1RM ≥0.90

1RM squat SN, C&J 1RM ≥0.93

F weightlifters CMJ, SJ PP SN, C&J 1RM ≥0.76

1RM squat SN, C&J 1RM ≥0.79

Channell et al., (2008) M young athletes Jump height PC 1RM/BW 0.75

PC 1RM/BW Squat 1RM/BW 0.88

Cronin et al., (2004) F netball players Chest pass distance Smith bench max 0.71
strength

González-Badillo et al., Trained M Mean velocity 30-95% 1RM 1RM 0.99

(2010)

González-Badillo et al., Young trained M Reps performed as load Bench press failure 0.99
(2017) increased (50-85% 1RM) sets

MPV loss as load increased Bench press failure 0.98

(50-85% 1RM) sets

Estimated % reps performed Bench press failure ≥0.98

after MPV loss (50-85% sets
1RM)

Loturco et al., (2017) M elite athletes MPV 40-100% 1RM Bench press, smith ≥0.98
bench max strength

Murphy et al., (1995) Trained M Bench press ISOPF 90° Bench press 1RM 0.78

Rodriguez Rosell (2019) Young trained M MPV loss % performed reps on ≥0.96
4 squat and bench
press loads

MPV loss Acute fatigue after ≥0.97

squat and bench
press to failure

Shetty (1990) M/F weightlifters Leg and Back MVIC SN, Jerk 1RM ≥0.72

Vizcaya et al., (2009) M weightlifters DSJ, SJ, CMJ height SN, C&J 1RM, ≥0.69
Sinclair total

M = male; F = female; CMJ = counter movement jump; SJ = squat jump; DSJ; deep squat jump;
SN = snatch; C&J = clean and jerk; PC = power clean; 1RM = 1-repetition maximum;
BW = body weight; PP = peak power; ISOPF = isometric peak force; MVIC = maximum voluntary
isometric contraction; MPV = Mean Propulsive Velocity. Sinclair total is a relative strength score in
Olympic weightlifting to compare performance across weight classes (Sinclair 1985).

© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics

30
Perceptual correlations with resistance training performance
Study Population
Hackett et al., (2012) M bodybuilders
Testa et al., (2012) Trained M/F
Zourdos et al., (2016) Trained M/F
Novice M/F
Graham & Cleather Trained M
(2019)
M = male; F = female; RIR =repetitions in reserve; CR-10 = Category ratio one to ten; RPE = rating of
perceived exertion; VL = volume load; MNR =maximum number of repetitions.
Performance
Performance in and of itself can be a useful
tool for monitoring resistance training. Unlike
team sports, in strength sports such as Olympic
weightlifting, powerlifting and strongman, the
competition lifts can be directly replicated and
tested in training. Typically, maximal strength
testing is performed at the beginning of a training
cycle for load prescription, and at the end of a
training cycle to assess its effectiveness (Seo et al.,
2012). However, this approach only allows for
retrospective analysis and may not provide
feedback frequently enough to optimise training.
While well-trained lifters can perform 1RMs with
a high degree of reliability (CV = 1.7-3.6%)
(McGuigan and Kane 2004), novice lifters can
increase their 1RMs quite rapidly due to
neuromuscular adaptations and the learning
effect of testing and thus, tests may not represent
their true maximal strength (Jovanović and
Flanagan 2014). This draws into question the
validity of basing training on a percentage of 1RM
in these populations. Additionally, regularly
testing competition 1RMs can be problematic even
in well trained lifters. Strength gains may be
optimised in trained populations when relative
load, on average, reaches 80-85% of 1RM
(Peterson et al., 2004, 2005). However, there is
data indicating that as the proportion of lifts
exceeding 90% of 1RM increases past a given
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 74/2020
Monitoring Resistance Training
Table 3
Correlating Resistance training variable r score
variable
Estimated RIR Actual RIR ≥ 0.93
Mean CR-10 RPE Actual RIR ≥ −0.94
Mean CR-10 RPE VL relative to MNR capacity ≥ 0.81
RIR-based RPE Mean squat velocity -0.88
-0.77
Session RPE Front squat intensity 0.71
Back squat intensity 0.85
point, strength gains attenuate, (Gonzalez-Badillo
et al., 2006), potentially caused by increased
fatigue from heavy loading. Additionally, there is
some evidence that if form breakdown occurs, the
risk of injury is higher when lifting heavy (≥ 90%
1RM) loads (Spencer and Croiss 2015). While
repetition maximum (RM) testing (i.e. maximal
load capacity when performing 3, 5 or 10
repetitions, etc.) allows for a reduction in the peak
mechanical strain on the body compared to 1RM
testing, training to failure on a regular basis can
be counterproductive as it can induce unnecessary
fatigue and metabolic strain without an added
benefit to performance when compared to a
submaximal approach (Izquierdo et al., 2006;
Davies et al., 2016). Therefore, there is interest in
studying less taxing forms of performance that
could be tested more frequently that are thought
to reflect improvements in competition lifts
(Vizcaya et al., 2009; Carlock et al., 2004).
Predictive performance measures
Several research groups investigated whether
jump performance can predict performance of the
Olympic lifts and their derivations (Vizcaya et al.,
2009; Channell and Barfield 2008; Carlock et al.,
2004). Jump testing requires far less time than
1RM testing and is also arguably less mentally or
physically fatiguing. Further, predictive measures
can provide information on how recovered the
athlete is from previous sessions, as well as give
http://www.johk.pl
by Helms ER et al.
insight on their readiness to perform on the given
day. This then allows for adjustments to the
present day’s training to ensure overtraining does
not occur while still providing an adequate
stimulus (i.e. autoregulation). While Carlock et al.,
(2004) reported strong relationships (r ≥ 0.76) for
peak power output in the counter-movement and
squat jump with Olympic weightlifting
performance in both male and female Olympic
weightlifters (Table 2), measurements of jump
height also appear to predict performance
(Vizcaya et al., 2009; Channell and Barfield 2008)
and requires less expensive equipment and
technical expertise. While strong correlations are
reported between countermovement, deep squat
and squat jump height with snatch and clean and
jerk performance (Vizcaya et al., 2009), the highest
correlations within individual studies are
typically found when taking bodyweight into
account. Specifically, Vizcaya and colleagues
(2009) found that out of all tested correlations, the
deep squat jump correlated highest (r ≥ 0.76) with
the Sinclair total (an equation for strength relative
to bodyweight used in Olympic weightlifting
(Sinclair 1985). Likewise, Channell et al., (2008)
reported their highest correlation (r = 0.88) for
jump height with power clean 1RM relative to
body mass. Additionally, decrements in vertical
jump (VJ) height were correlated with the
decrement in back squat volume performed (r =
0.65) (Watkins et al., 2017). Specifically, BRUNEL
Mood Assessment (BAM) and VJ were measured
before and after two fatiguing lower body
sessions within 48 hours of each other, consisting
of hang cleans, push presses, Romanian deadlifts,
leg presses and four sets to failure in the back
squat. A ~2.5 cm decrease in VJ height
corresponded to a ~5.5 repetition decrease in back
squat volume after a fatiguing workout.
Therefore, VJ height assessment could be used as
a tool to measure readiness for back squat training
after high volume, fatiguing resistance exercise.
Limited study of the predictive ability of
other peak power output tests on exercise
performance has occurred outside of jumps and
Olympic weightlifting. For example, medicine ball
chest pass distance was reported to strongly
correlate (r = 0.71) with maximal Smith machine
bench press strength (Cronin and Owen 2004).
Other lab-based kinetic measures have also
correlated to resistance training performance.
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
31
Maximum voluntary isometric contractions of the
leg and back musculature are predictive (r = 0.72-
0.84) of snatch and jerk 1RM (Shetty 1990) and 90
degrees isometric bench press peak force can
predict (r = 0.78) bench press 1RM (Murphy et al.,
1995) in well trained lifters (these relationships
may be weaker without technical proficiency in
the exercises in question). While
electromyography and force measurements are
typically prohibitive due to the cost and expertise
needed, measuring barbell velocity is an emerging
possibility for field use. Mean concentric velocity
is highly predictive of strength (Table 2) as per the
load-velocity relationship. As a lifter approaches
the maximal number of repetitions they can
perform during a set, velocity will slow until they
reach failure or zero velocity (González-Badillo
and Sánchez-Medina 2010). Thus, it is proposed
that volume could be regulated by the
maintenance of velocity or peak mechanical
power output or that load could be individually
prescribed based on a velocity profile (González-
Badillo and Sánchez-Medina 2010). Indeed,
authors of a review on velocity-based training
(VBT) describe how an individualised velocity
profile can be conducted with 5 sub maximal sets
between 30-85% of 1RM without the need to test
the individual’s 1RM (Jovanović and Flanagan
2014). This profile can be used to prescribe load
based on velocity as opposed to a percentage of
1RM. Due to the stable relationship between
velocity and percentage of 1RM, VBT allows for
session-to-session load autoregulation. Thus, VBT
avoids the issue of a prescribed load being too
easy or difficult due to acute arousal or fatigue,
respectively (or atypical arousal or fatigue during
a 1RM pre-test), that can occur with percentage
based training.
Recently, researchers investigated a system
by which volume could be autoregulated based
on thresholds for velocity decay. Specifically, two
groups were compared, one which ceased
performing repetitions within a set when the
initial velocity decreased by 40% and another
which ceased repetitions after a 20% velocity
decay. More volume, and subsequently greater
hypertrophy, was generated in the 40% group,
while less volume and greater improvements in
jump height occurred in the 20% group
(Pareja-Blanco et al., 2017). In addition,
Rodriguez-Rosell and colleagues (2019) examined
32
the relationship of velocity loss and repetitions in
reserve in the back squat and bench press. A
single set to failure was performed for both
exercises with four different relative loads (50%,
60%, 70%, and 80% of 1RM). A strong relationship
was found between the relative loss of velocity
and the completed amount of repetitions within
the set across all four intensities. This provides
novel data that set volume can be autoregulated
based on the magnitude of velocity loss instead of
a fixed number of repetitions with a given load.
Similarly, the time course of recovery
following four different resistance exercise
protocols in terms of loading magnitude (60% and
80% 1RM) and velocity loss (20% vs 40%) in the
full squat exercise was established (Pareja-Blanco
et al., 2017). A higher velocity loss during the set
(40%) and a lower relative load (60% 1RM)
resulted in greater fatigue and slower rates of
recovery than lower velocity loss and higher
relative load; therefore, intensity and level of
effort are two key variables to regulate and
monitor within a training program. Finally, mean
velocity and peak power output were
substantially higher with 10% of velocity loss
when compared to 20% and 30% across multiple
sets in the back squat (Weakley et al., 2019),
suggesting velocity loss thresholds can be used to
prescribe and monitor training loads as they allow
for maintenance of desired performance
characteristics and specific adaptations.
Velocity loss is a reliable method for
monitoring the level of effort and training volume
during resistance exercise. Specifically, velocity
was collected while subjects performed eight tests
of repetition maximums with loads ranging from
50-85% of 1RM in the bench press. González-
Badillo and colleagues (2017) observed a very
strong relationship between the percentage of
mean propulsive velocity (MPV) loss in a set and
the percentage of performed repetitions for loads
between 50-85% of 1RM in the bench press.
Furthermore, equations to predict the percentage
of performed repetitions from relative velocity
loss were determined. Thus, monitoring repetition
velocity and using prediction equations to
determine how many repetitions are left in
reserve in a bench press set may be possible.
Additionally, in a study of male athletes from
different sports, MPV precisely determined free
weight bench press and Smith machine bench
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 74/2020
Monitoring Resistance Training
press loading intensities from 40-100% 1RM
(Loturco et al., 2017). Because MPV can precisely
determine loading intensities and performance,
monitoring fluctuations in daily strength and
prescribing appropriate loading strategies may be
possible with VBT. Research in VBT primarily
involves the back squat and bench press; thus, its
use is not well understood for other exercises
and/or variations. Recently, Spitz and colleagues
(2019) had subjects perform trials at maximal
intended velocity with loads of 30, 50, 70, and 90%
of 1RM for the back squat and front squat. Peak
and mean velocities between these two lifts were
similar; thus, VBT is likely a compatible tool for
either squat variation.
Arguably more important than these
reported relationships, are the preliminary studies
examining longitudinal training adaptations. In a
study of well-trained men, VBT led to
significantly larger gains in bench press 1RM and
CMJ as well as 50% larger improvements in
strength in the squat, deadlift, and strict overhead
press compared to percentage-based training after
6 weeks (Dorrell et al., 2019). Similarly, VBT
produced significantly faster mean and peak
velocities compared to PBT in well trained males
(Banyard et al., 2019). While recent research
shows the potential utility of VBT to individualise
training and enhance performance, equipment is
required for its implementation. Fortunately, the
linear position transducers utilised to track
velocity in the field are easy to use, and if they
become more affordable and with the advent of
smart phone applications which can reliably
measure velocity (Balsalobre-Fernandez et al.,
2017), VBT will likely become more accessible and
used by athletes and practitioners.
Individualised load progression
Another performance-based method of
autoregulating training, is to implement
individualised load increases based on acute
performance instead of using pre-established
increases in load from week to week (Mann et al.,
2010). In one such study, Mann investigated
“autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise”
(APRE), a system in which each exercise was
performed for four sets, with the repetitions in the
third and fourth sets performed until failure. A
chart was consulted that dictated the load
adjustment to the fourth set based on the number
of repetitions achieved during the third set. If
http://www.johk.pl
by Helms ER et al.
greater or fewer repetitions were performed than
expected, the load for the fourth set was either
increased or decreased according to the chart,
respectively. This same process was then repeated
based on the number of repetitions achieved on
the final fourth set to determine the load to be
used in the next training session (Mann et al.,
2010). Interestingly, when comparing APRE to a
linear periodised (LP) approach with Division I
American football players during a 6-week
training period, Mann and colleagues found that
APRE resulted in greater improvements in 1RM
bench press strength (APRE: 93.4 ± 103 N vs. LP:
20.40 ± 49.6 N; p = 0.02), estimated 1RM squat
strength (APRE: 192.7 ± 199 N vs. LP: 37.2 ± 155 N;
p = 0.05) and number of bench press repetitions
performed to fatigue with a weight of 225 lb
(APRE: 3.17 ± 2.86 vs. LP: -0.09 ± 2.40 repetitions;
p = 0.02), compared to LP.
Based on the same concept, in a speculative
review, Fairman and colleagues (2017) proposed
the use of an APRE inspired, rating of perceived
exertion (RPE) modified, individualised load
progression approach. The authors recommended
that increases or decreases in load could occur
when sets were performed at a lower or higher
RPE, respectively, than prescribed (Fairman et al.,
2017). Likewise, in a study comparing volume
matched, moderate-load, high-repetition
resistance training to high-load, low-repetition
training, Klemp et al., (2016) implemented an
individualised approach to load increases in both
groups based on the completion of the prescribed
training from the previous week. Specifically, load
increases were dependent on whether the
individual completed the prescribed prior
training, or was unable to complete all prescribed
repetitions. If repetitions were missed, smaller
load increases were implemented (Klemp et al.,
2016). While both approaches were inspired by
the to-failure APRE model, these modifications
allow the concept to be applied without the
requirement of training to failure.
Perceptual
Psychometric questionnaires and rating
scales have long been used to assess readiness
(Laurent et al., 2011) and recovery (Sweet et al.,
2004) in athletes. Their ease of use, negligible cost,
and versatility make them attractive options for
training monitoring (Saw, Main, and Gastin 2016).
Simple scores for rating perceived exertion can be
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
33
obtained after sets (Testa et al., 2012), or after
entire sessions (Day et al., 2004), and ratings for
readiness can be recorded prior to sessions to
predict performance (Sikorski et al., 2013) or even
to alter training schedules (McNamara and
Stearne 2010). Additionally, tracking fatigue and
depression with psychometric questionnaires is
one of the only methods of monitoring
overtraining which is almost universally
suggested due to its validity in mirroring training
loads, ease of use and reliability (Fahey 1997;
Foster 1998; Meeusen et al., 2013).
Subjective wellness scales
One such scale introduced by Laurent and
colleagues (2011) called the perceived recovery
status (PRS) scale is a way of monitoring athlete
readiness. The PRS scale is essentially an inverted
RPE scale from 0-10 whereby 10 signifies “very
well recovered” and 0 signifies “very poorly
recovered”. PRS scores of 0-2 indicate that the
athlete or coach can expect reduced performance,
with scores of 3-7 normal performance is
expected, and with scores of 8-10 improved
performance is expected. In this study, PRS scores
were applied to repeated sprint training over 72
hours and the authors found post-warm up PRS
scores were inversely associated with change in
sprint times, i.e. faster sprints were moderately
correlated with higher subjective ratings of
readiness (r = -0.63, p < 0.01). When PRS scores
were taken prior to warming up, this correlation
fell to -0.41. More specific to the present review,
Sikorski and colleagues (2013) examined the
relationship between PRS scores and biomarkers
of recovery and readiness 48 hours after a high
volume bout of resistance training in trained
participants. The authors reported that 58.6% of
the variance in the muscle damage marker
creatine kinase was explained by PRS scores (r2=
0.59, p < 0.05) and overall, moderate coefficients of
determination were observed between muscle
soreness in the legs, chest and arms respectively
(r2 = 0.53, 0.29, 0.12, p < 0.05).
Questions remain, however, as to the utility
of the PRS scale to predict acute performance. In a
recent case series, PRS scores were moderately
correlated with daily 1RM performance in two out
of three well-trained competitive lifters.
However, in one lifter this correlation was
positive (r = 0.53, p < 0.05) as one might expect,
while in the other lifter the correlation was
34
actually negative (r = -0.39, p < 0.05) (Zourdos et
al., 2015). In contrast to the inconsistent
relationship between PRS and 1RM in this case
series, significant relationships were reported for
all three participants between the RPE score of
their final warm up set at 85% 1RM and 1RM
performance (r = -0.35-0.70, p < 0.05) (Zourdos et
al., 2015). In this study, a relatively new RPE scale
based on repetitions in reserve (RIR) was utilised,
in which RPE scores are defined by how many
additional repetitions the user believed they could
have performed had they taken the set to failure
(i.e. 7 RPE corresponds to 3 RIR, 8 RPE to 2 RIR, 9
RPE 1 RIR, etc.) (Zourdos et al., 2016). Thus, this
preliminary data may indicate that RIR-based
RPE scores of a final warm up set could be a more
accurate predictor than PRS for acute force
production.
Besides the PRS scale, usage of other forms of
subjective scales have been employed to
investigate the relationship between subjective
well-being and counter movement jump (CMJ) to
assess neuromuscular performance. Hills and
Rogerson (2018) designed a custom questionnaire
modelled on the questionnaire used by McLean
and colleagues (2010) to evaluate neuromuscular
performance in Rugby athletes. Sleep, fatigue,
upper and lower body soreness, and mood all
showed positive associations with CMJ peak
velocity (r = 0.67, 95% CIs = 0.54-0.76, p < 0.01),
when using this questionnaire. These results are
similar to the research of Watkins and colleagues
(2017) who showed a strong association in back
squat performance with CMJ which is commonly
used to measure neuromuscular fatigue. Hence,
there could be value in using a subjective wellness
questionnaire to assess and monitor ongoing
neuromuscular fatigue/readiness, potentially used
to modify session to session training.
Borg and RIR-based RPE
As discussed in the previous section, the
“resistance training specific” RPE scale based on
RIR (Zourdos et al., 2016) is a scale that measures
intensity of effort on a scale of 1-10, based on
proximity to failure within a set, called RIR. As
discussed, velocity is a validated objective
measure for intensity of effort (Jovanović and
Flanagan 2014), and strong inverse correlations
with barbell velocity and RPE (as load increases)
in the squat and bench press has been reported in
trained lifters (r = -0.77-0.88, p < 0.001) (Zourdos et
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 74/2020
Monitoring Resistance Training
al., 2016; Ormsbee et al., 2017). Additionally,
because it is anchored to a quantitative value
(RIR), the RIR-based RPE scale may be a more
accurate scoring system for resistance training
than the Borg category ratio 1 to 10 (CR-10) RPE
scale (Borg 1982). This notion is based on the fact
that lifters using the Borg scale have been shown
to report submaximal RPE scores (6.8 to 8.1) even
when taking sets to failure (Pritchett et al., 2009;
Shimano et al., 2006). In one study, bodybuilders
reported submaximal CR-10 scores when taking
bench press and squat sets to failure (8.9-9.0 ± 0.7-
0.8), yet their estimated RIR was within 0.63
repetitions from actual RIR (95% limits of
agreements) (Hackett et al., 2012). Also, the ability
to accurately gauge exertion using the traditional
Borg RPE may be influenced to a greater degree
by biological sex and athletic experience (Winborn
et al., 1988; Barroso et al., 2014). Specifically, the
more experience an athlete has, the more accurate
ratings become (Barroso et al., 2014). Furthermore,
in one study, inexperienced female athletes rated
Borg RPE less accurately than inexperienced
males; however, athletic exposure seemed to
override these differences (Winborn et al., 1988).
In contrast, authors of a recent study found when
trained and untrained males and females
performed the machine chest and leg press within
0 to 3 repetitions from failure, their predicted RIR
error (i.e. the difference in the number of
repetitions between predicted and actual) was less
than one and did not significantly differ based on
biological sex or experience (Hackett et al., 2016).
However, some minor differences related to
biological sex and experience do exist when using
RIR. In the same study, when more than 3
repetitions from failure remained, males gauged
RIR slightly more accurately than females
(Hackett et al., 2016). It also appears novice lifters
are less accurate when selecting back squat 1RM
loads using the RIR-based scale compared to
experienced lifters. However, this is likely caused
by novice lifters’ inability to maintain
neuromuscular control of heavy loads rather than
a markedly poorer rating ability (Zourdos et al.,
2016).
Recently, Helms and colleagues (2017)
investigated if powerlifters can select loads to
reach a self-rated targeted RPE. The investigators
found that mean ‘RPE difference”, as calculated
by RPE score – RPE target, were < 0.5 RPE from
http://www.johk.pl
by Helms ER et al.
the target, indicating that Powerlifters perceive
their load selections to accurately reflect their
intended RPE upon set completion. In a more
objective assessment, Zourdos and colleagues
(2019) investigated the accuracy of intra-set RPE
scores in the squat during a multiple repetition
set, such that lifters reported an RPE between
repetitions based on their perception of RIR
throughout a set. The investigators found RIR
predictions were more accurate when a set was
taken closer to failure (9RPE), compared to further
away from failure (7RPE), suggesting RIR-based
RPE scores are best used when closer to failure
during moderate to low repetition sets. Further,
the participants accuracy was weakly, although
not significantly correlated (r = -0.34 to -0.35; p =
0.09-0.10) to training age. This weak and
nonsignificant relationship could be explained by
the participants in Zourdos and colleagues’ study
all having a training age greater than 2 years,
differing from previous investigations of less
trained individuals (Ormsbee et al., 2017; Hackett
et al., 2016).
Besides using RPE to predict RIR and to
autoregulate intensity of effort, RPE can also be
used as a method to autoregulate training
volume. Helms and colleagues (2018) had
competitive powerlifters perform the squat and
bench press 3x/wk and deadlift 2x/wk in a daily
undulating format. Similar to the study
performed by Parejo-Blanco and colleagues
(2017), where a set was stopped when a velocity
loss threshold was met, this study utilized a
concept called an “RPE stop” in which the set was
stopped when the prescribed RPE was reached or
exceeded. Subjects were assigned to one of six
RPE stop week orders (2%, 4%, 6%, or 4%, 6%, 2%
or 4%, 2%, 6% etc.) and were required to perform
a top set to a designated RPE followed by back off
sets calculated based on which RPE stop week
they were currently in. The lifters then had to
perform sets with loads reduced by the
designated percentage (2%, 4%, or 6%) until the
RPE goal was met, exceeded, or not all repetitions
were completed. The investigators found a higher
RPE stop resulted in a predictable increase in
training volume, allowing total training load to be
autoregulated using an RPE stop system.
Beyond predictably regulating volume, the
same investigators compared the utility of two
resistance training protocols differing only in how
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
35
load was prescribed (RPE vs % 1RM), while
differences were nonsignificant, they observed
small between-group effect sizes favouring the
RPE load prescription group for 1RM strength
gains (Helms et al., 2018). This was further
validated by Graham and Cleather (2019) who
compared changes in 1RM front and back squats
between an autoregulated program (AR) using
RIR against a fixed load training program (FL)
using percentage 1RM across 12 weeks. Both
groups improved their front squat and back squat
after the intervention, but the autoregulated
group had comparatively greater increases (p <
0.05) in their front squat (AR = 14.1kg, FL= 9.3kg)
and back squat (AR = 15.2, FL = 9.1kg).
Collectively, the evidence suggests the RIR-based
RPE scale is a useful tool for prescribing and
monitoring resistance training, and may facilitate
greater strength gains compared to fixed-load
protocols in trained lifters.
Overall, the greater accuracy observed when
using RIR-based versus Borg RPE may be due to
the differing definitions for scores between scales.
Exercise “anchoring” (which is often not
performed), whereby the researcher has the
participant perform exercises at varying
intensities and then verbally anchors RPE scores
to each intensity, improves the accuracy of
subsequent Borg RPE ratings (Pageaux 2016).
Arguably, the Borg RPE scoring criterion such as
“very hard” or “somewhat hard” are more reliant
on anchoring because individuals of different
demographics and with different backgrounds
(i.e. athletic experience) may have differing
perceptions of what constitutes these descriptions.
However, the RIR-based scale may have less
variability as scores are more objectively anchored
based on the specific number of repetitions the
user believes they can perform at the end of a set.
This scale has also been used to autoregulate
training load, volume and proven as an effective
tool to increase strength.
Athlete-adjusted training configuration
Another use for subjective rating scales, is for
altering training scheduling. In a study that more
or less applied the PRS for daily load selection,
McNamara and Stearne (2010) implemented a
flexible non-linear model of training whereby
members of a university weight training class
could select either 10, 15 or 20RM loads for the
day after rating their energy level on a 1 to 10
36
scale. The flexible training group made
significantly greater strength improvements on an
estimated 1RM leg press test when compared to a
volume-matched group that performed a
predetermined loading order (62 kg vs 16 kg; p =
0.02). Thus, while PRS was not explicitly studied,
a 1 to 10 scale of readiness was used to guide
daily training. Therefore, although it is unclear
whether the PRS scale can accurately predict force
production in trained lifters, based on the findings
of McNamara and Stearne (2010), it may be a
viable method of assessing readiness to train.
Supporting this notion, in a recent study
trained males were split into groups, one
performing an undulating protocol in a pre-set
daily order of hypertrophy, power, and strength
(HPS), while participants in a ‘flexible’ group
were given the option to choose the order in
which they wanted to perform sessions each
week. Unlike McNamara and Stearne (2010), the
flexible and HPS groups gained similar (p = 0.63)
amounts of strength (increase in powerlifting total
by 9.3% and 9.2%, respectively) (Colquhoun et al.,
2016). This lack of difference is potentially
explained by a recent investigation, in which
participants using the HPS model performed
more volume on strength days and increased
1RMs to a greater degree than a group performing
sessions in the order of hypertrophy, strength and
then power (Zourdos, et al., 2016); suggesting that
there is little room to improve the HPS model
when only intra-week adjustments are made
(McNamara and Stearne allowed for adjustments
throughout an entire mesocycle). With that said,
even though performance was similar between
groups, all participants in the flexible group
completed the protocol while only 11 of 16 did so
in the HPS group. Thus, it appears that a training
protocol with a flexible schedule may improve
adherence and will at least result in similar
(Colquhoun et al., 2016), if not potentially greater
strength gains (McNamara and Stearne 2010),
compared to a pre-set protocol.
Session RPE
Another application of RPE in resistance
training is the use of ‘session RPE’ (Day et al.,
2004) originally introduced by Foster and
colleagues (1995) in the study of endurance
athletes. Session RPE is calculated by providing a
1-10 RPE rating using the Borg CR-10 scale 30
minutes after training to encapsulate perceived
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 74/2020
Monitoring Resistance Training
difficulty for the entire session. This rating is then
used to represent internal training load by itself
(Day et al., 2004; Sweet et al., 2004), or can be
multiplied by the total repetitions (Lambert and
Borresen 2010) or sets performed in a session
(McGuigan et al., 2004). When using session RPE
rating in isolation, scores mirror the load used in
training without respect to the volume performed
(Day et al., 2004; Sweet et al., 2004). Thus, it is has
been recommended to multiply session RPE by
the number of repetitions performed, and
optionally to divide that by the amount of time
the session took, to provide a measurement for
internal training load that represents volume,
intensity and density of training (Sweet et al.,
2004).
Furthermore, McGuigan and Foster (2004)
proposed session RPE could be used for more in
depth resistance training monitoring. Specifically,
session RPE multiplied by the number of sets (in
the case of aerobic exercise, session duration)
could be used to represent ‘training load’ for the
day. Then, ‘training monotony’ (defined as the
variability of training over a given time period) is
determined by dividing the mean training load
over a week by its SD. Finally, the product of
training load and monotony can be used to
calculate ‘training strain’ (Foster 1998),
representing the overall stress experienced by the
athlete. Importantly, higher levels of monotony
and strain are associated with overtraining in
athletes (Foster 1998); however, little research
exists examining overtraining relationships with
these variables when performing resistance
training (Kiely 2012).
The original Borg 6-20 and CR-10 RPE scales
(Borg 1970; Borg 1982), the modified OMNI RPE
scale that includes a visual component (Robertson
et al., 2003) and session RPE (Foster et al., 1995)
appear to be reliable, representative of training
load and physiological stress, and have therefore
been suggested for training monitoring (Day et
al., 2004; McGuigan and Foster 2004; Sweet et al.,
2004). However, the application of RPE up to this
point has primarily been as a post-set or post-
session method of ensuring the prescribed
external stress is matched internally with the
experience of the athlete. Only recently has RPE,
specifically the RIR-based scale, been suggested as
a method for autoregulated load prescription
(Zourdos, et al., 2016; Fairman et al., 2017). While
http://www.johk.pl
by Helms ER et al.
this is an intriguing proposition, future research is
required to assess the effectiveness of this
approach.
Conclusions
A great deal of research examining methods
of monitoring and regulating resistance training
exists. Many of the biochemical monitoring
methods are currently only appropriate for use
within a research setting due to cost, time course
for analysis, expertise required, or sample size
needed for reliability. Other emerging
physiological monitoring methods may
eventually sidestep these issues; however, their
application for resistance training has not yet been
adequately studied (for example, heart rate
variability). In contrast to the often difficult to use
physiological methods, practical performance-
based approaches to individualising training
exist. Autoregulating load progression based on
previous performance may result in greater
strength gains than pre-determined progression
models; and selecting an acute session-focus
based on perceived readiness may also result in
greater strength gain compared to rigid
scheduling. Some field-based performance
measurements appear to have utility for
predicting competition lift 1RM strength.
Specifically, bodyweight or light weight
implement (such as a medicine ball chest pass)
tests of maximal power may be usable as testing
surrogates to avoid the fatigue and high
mechanical loads associated with testing 1RM or
repetitions to failure, if the athletes have a high
technical proficiency and if a high test-retest
reliability is established. Additionally, given the
initial success of applying VBT for enhancing
strength, and as the accessibility of velocity
measurement technology improves, velocity-
based autoregulation for both load and volume
may become increasingly attractive approaches to
individualising training. Given the ability of well-
trained athletes to accurately gauge RIR, the high
correlations between velocity and RIR-based RPE,
and the preliminary training studies showing its
use may enhance strength gains, this novel RPE
scale may also have similar utility. While Borg
and session RPE are useful for post-hoc
monitoring, future research may reveal the RIR-
based scale to have unique applications for
autoregulatory training prescription much like
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
37
velocity.
Practical implications
Given the above, many theoretical
frameworks for monitoring and autoregulating
resistance training can be developed and
implemented. Such a framework could include
pre-training assessments of readiness which could
be used to keep, or modify the planned session for
the day in a flexible training template. Such a
decision, for example, could be based on jump
height to determine volume capabilities on back
squats or the predicted performance on the
Olympic lifts, or a medicine chest ball pass for
predicted performance on bench press. More
globally, a 1-10 perceived readiness score
following a warm up could be used to select a
harder or easier session, or RIR-based RPE or
velocity of the final warm up set could be used to
determine whether a maximal strength, power, or
volume-focused session should occur.
Following the selection of the daily training
session, the load and/or volume could be adjusted
based on an athlete’s capabilities on the day. For
example, load could be selected such that the first
repetition fell within the corresponding velocity
range for a given percentage of 1RM, or the load
could be assigned using a repetition target at a
given RIR-based RPE score. Volume, either as
number of repetitions per set or number of sets,
could be autoregulated based on velocity or RPE
stops. For example, a velocity range for the first
repetition could be assigned, and the set could be
stopped once ACV declined by a specific
percentage (10-40%, per goal). Likewise, sets at a
given repetition target could be assigned at an
initial RPE, and once RPE increased on
subsequent sets by a predetermined value, no
further sets would be performed (e.g. sets of eight,
with the initial set at 7RPE, continuing to do sets
until a set was rated at a 9RPE or higher).
Following the completion of a mesocycle
where sessions within each microcycle were
determined or adjusted by readiness, and where
intra-session load and volume were adjusted
based on performance, the overall balance of
stress, recovery, and adaptation could be assessed
retrospectively. For example, average session RPE
(either as a raw value or multiplied by the
number of sets in a session) could be calculated
for the mesocycle, and considered alongside the
38 Monitoring Resistance Training

performance improvements or lack thereof of the
athlete. If the average sessional RPE is high, and
performance was stagnant or decreased,
adjustments to the target RIR-based RPEs,
velocity or RPE stops, or other variables to reduce
volume or load could be implemented in the
following mesocycle to hopefully reduce fatigue
and allow for adaptation. Likewise, if the average
sessional RPE is low, and performance was
stagnant or decreased, the opposite adjustments
could be made to increase training stress
sufficiently to drive adaptation in the next
mesocycle.
Ultimately, professionals can develop the
most appropriate framework for their situation.
We advise trainers and practitioners to select the
monitoring and autoregulation tools discussed in
this review which are the most practical given
their budgetary, logistical and time constraints. In
addition to practicality, we suggest utilising the
approaches which are most representative of
performance or training load. By doing so,
trainers can improve the resistance training
performance of even highly experienced athletes,
who not only require a more individualised
approach, but also careful balancing of their
training stress and stimulus.

References
Andreatta, M. V., et al. Cell-Free DNA as an Earlier Predictor of Exercise-Induced Performance Decrement
Related to Muscle Damage. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 2018; 13: 953-56.
Arregger, A. L., et al. Salivary Testosterone: A Reliable Approach to the Diagnosis of Male Hypogonadism.
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf), 2007; 67: 656-62.
Baird, M. F., et al. Creatine-Kinase- and Exercise-Related Muscle Damage Implications for Muscle
Performance and Recovery. J Nutr Metab, 2012; 2012.
Baker, D. G. 10-Year Changes in Upper Body Strength and Power in Elite Professional Rugby League
Players--the Effect of Training Age, Stage, and Content. J Strength Cond Res, 2013; 27: 285-92.
Balsalobre-Fernandez, C., et al. Validity and Reliability of a Novel Iphone App for the Measurement of
Barbell Velocity and 1rm on the Bench-Press Exercise. J Sports Sci, 2017; 1-7.
Banyard, H. G., et al. Comparison of the Effects of Velocity-Based Training Methods and Traditional 1rm-
Percent-Based Training Prescription on Acute Kinetic and Kinematic Variables. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform, 2019; 14: 246-55.
Barroso, R., et al. Perceived Exertion in Coaches and Young Swimmers with Different Training Experience.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 2014; 9: 212-6.
Bartholomew, J. B., et al. Strength Gains after Resistance Training: The Effect of Stressful, Negative Life
Events. J Strength Cond Res, 2008; 22: 1215-21.
Beaven, C. M., C. J. Cook, and N. D. Gill. Significant Strength Gains Observed in Rugby Players after Specific
Resistance Exercise Protocols Based on Individual Salivary Testosterone Responses. J Strength
Cond Res, 2008; 22: 419-25.
Belcher, D. J., et al. Time Course of Recovery Is Similar for the Back Squat, Bench Press, and Deadlift in Well-
Trained Males. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab, 2019.
Borg, G. Perceived Exertion as an Indicator of Somatic Stress. Scand J Rehabil Med, 1970; 2: 92-8.
Borg, G. A. Psychophysical Bases of Perceived Exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1982; 14: 377-81.
Brancaccio, P., G. Lippi, and N. Maffulli. Biochemical Markers of Muscular Damage. Clin Chem Lab Med,
2010; 48: 757-67.
Bulbulian, R., et al. The Effect of Sleep Deprivation and Exercise Load on Isokinetic Leg Strength and
Endurance. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol, 1996; 73: 273-7.
Cadore, E., et al. Correlations between Serum and Salivary Hormonal Concentrations in Response to
Resistance Exercise. J Sports Sci, 2008; 26: 1067-72.
Carlock, J. M., et al. The Relationship between Vertical Jump Power Estimates and Weightlifting Ability: A
Field-Test Approach. J Strength Cond Res, 2004; 18: 534-9.
Channell, B. T., and J. P. Barfield. Effect of Olympic and Traditional Resistance Training on Vertical Jump

Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 74/2020 http://www.johk.pl

by Helms ER et al. 39
Improvement in High School Boys. J Strength Cond Res, 2008; 22: 1522-7.
Colquhoun, Ryan J., et al. Comparison of Powerlifting Performance in Trained Males Using Traditional and
Flexible Daily Undulating Periodization. J Strength Cond Res, 2016; Published ahead of print.
Cook, C. J., and C. M. Beaven. Salivary Testosterone Is Related to Self-Selected Training Load in Elite Female
Athletes. Physiol Behav, 2013; 116-117: 8-12.
Crewther, B. T., and Cook Christian. Relationships between Salivary Testosterone and Cortisol
Concentrations and Training Performance in Olympic Weightlifters. J Sports Med Phys Fitness,
2010; 50: 371-75.
Crewther, B. T., et al. Baseline Strength Can Influence the Ability of Salivary Free Testosterone to Predict
Squat and Sprinting Performance. J Strength Cond Res, 2012; 26: 261-8.
Crewther, B. T., et al. Neuromuscular Performance of Elite Rugby Union Players and Relationships with
Salivary Hormones. J Strength Cond Res, 2009; 23: 2046-53.
Crewther, B. T., H. Taati, and J. W. L. Keogh. The Effects of Training Volume and Competition on the
Salivary Cortisol Concentrations of Olympic Weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res, 2011; 25: 10-15.
Cronin, J. B., and G. J. Owen. Upper-Body Strength and Power Assessment in Women Using a Chest Pass. J
Strength Cond Res, 2004; 18: 401-4.
Damas, F., et al. Resistance Training-Induced Changes in Integrated Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis Are
Related to Hypertrophy Only after Attenuation of Muscle Damage. J Physiol, 2016; 594: 5209-22.
Davison, R. Richard, Ken A. Van Someren, and Andrew M. Jones. Physiological Monitoring of the Olympic
Athlete. J Sports Sci, 2009; 27: 1433-42.
Day, M. L., et al. Monitoring Exercise Intensity During Resistance Training Using the Session Rpe Scale. J
Strength Cond Res, 2004; 18: 353-8.
Dorrell, H. F., M. F. Smith, and T. I. Gee. Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Percentage-Based
Loading Methods on Maximal Strength and Power Adaptations. J Strength Cond Res, 2019;
Published Ahead of Print.
Fahey, T. D. Biological Markers of Overtraining. Biology of Sport, 1997; 14: 3-19.
Fairman, C. M., et al. A Scientific Rationale to Improve Resistance Training Prescription in Exercise
Oncology. Sports Med, 2017; 47: 1457-65.
Foster, C. Monitoring Training in Athletes with Reference to Overtraining Syndrome. Med Sci Sports Exerc,
1998; 30: 1164-8.
Foster, C., et al. Effects of Specific Versus Cross-Training on Running Performance. Eur J Appl Physiol
Occup Physiol, 1995; 70: 367-72.
Fry, Andrew C, et al. Relationships between Serum Testosterone, Cortisol, and Weightlifting Performance. J
Strength Cond Res, 2000; 14: 338-43.
Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., M. Izquierdo, and E. M. Gorostiaga. Moderate Volume of High Relative Training
Intensity Produces Greater Strength Gains Compared with Low and High Volumes in Competitive
Weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res, 2006; 20: 73-81.
González-Badillo, J. J., and L. Sánchez-Medina. Movement Velocity as a Measure of Loading Intensity in
Resistance Training. Int J Sports Med, 2010; 31: 347-52.
Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., et al. Velocity Loss as a Variable for Monitoring Resistance Exercise. Int J Sports Med,
2017; 38: 217-25.
Graham, T., and D. J. Cleather. Autoregulation by "Repetitions in Reserve" Leads to Greater Improvements
in Strength over a 12-Week Training Program Than Fixed Loading. J Strength Cond Res, 2019.
Hackett, D. A., et al. Accuracy in Estimating Repetitions to Failure During Resistance Exercise. J Strength
Cond Res, 2016; Published ahead of print.
Hackett, D. A., et al. A Novel Scale to Assess Resistance-Exercise Effort. J Sports Sci, 2012; 30: 1405-13.
Helms, E. R., et al. Self-Rated Accuracy of Rating of Perceived Exertion-Based Load Prescription in
Powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res, 2017; 31: 2938-43.
Helms, E. R., et al. Rating of Perceived Exertion as a Method of Volume Autoregulation within a Periodized
Program. J Strength Cond Res, 2018; 32: 1627-36.
Helms, E.R., et al. RPE vs. Percentage 1RM loading in periodized programs matched for sets and repetitions.
Front Physiol, 2018; 9: 247.
Helms, E. R., et al. High-Protein, Low-Fat, Short-Term Diet Results in Less Stress and Fatigue Than

© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics

40 Monitoring Resistance Training

Moderate-Protein Moderate-Fat Diet During Weight Loss in Male Weightlifters: A Pilot Study. Int J
Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 2015; 25: 163-70.
Hills, S. P., and D. J. Rogerson. Associatons between Self-Reported Well-Being and Neuromuscular
Performance During a Professional Rugby Union Season. J Strength Cond Res, 2018; 32: 2498-509.
Hubal, M. J., et al. Variability in Muscle Size and Strength Gain after Unilateral Resistance Training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc, 2005; 37: 964-72.
Izquierdo, Mikel, et al. Differential Effects of Strength Training Leading to Failure Versus Not to Failure on
Hormonal Responses, Strength, and Muscle Power Gains. J Appl Physiol, 2006; 100: 1647-56.
Jovanović, Mladen, and Eamonn P Flanagan. Researched Applications of Velocity Based Strength Training. J
Aust Strength Cond, 2014; 22: 58-69.
Kiely, J. Periodization Paradigms in the 21st Century: Evidence-Led or Tradition-Driven? Int J Sports Physiol
Perform, 2012; 7: 242-50.
Klemp, A., et al. Volume-Equated High- and Low-Repetition Daily Undulating Programming Strategies
Produce Similar Hypertrophy and Strength Adaptations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab, 2016; 41: 699-
705.
Lambert, M.I., and J. Borresen. Measuring Training Load in Sports. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 2010; 5: 406-
11.
Laurent, C. M., et al. A Practical Approach to Monitoring Recovery: Development of a Perceived Recovery
Status Scale. J Strength Cond Res, 2011; 25: 620-28.
Le Panse, B., et al. Cortisol, Dhea, and Testosterone Concentrations in Saliva in Response to an International
Powerlifting Competition. Stress, 2010; 13: 528-32.
Lemmer, J. T., et al. Age and Gender Responses to Strength Training and Detraining. Med Sci Sports Exerc,
2000; 32: 1505-12.
Lippi, G., et al. Measurement of Morning Saliva Cortisol in Athletes. Clin Biochem, 2009; 42: 904-6.
Loturco, I., et al. Predicting the Maximum Dynamic Strength in Bench Press: The High Precision of the Bar
Velocity Approach. J Strength Cond Res, 2017; 31: 1127-31.
Machado, M., et al. Creatine Kinase Activity Weakly Correlates to Volume Completed Following Upper
Body Resistance Exercise. Res Q Exerc Sport, 2012; 83: 276-81.
Mann, J. B., et al. The Effect of Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise Vs. Linear Periodization on
Strength Improvement in College Athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 2010; 24: 1718-23.
McGuigan, M. R., A. D. Egan, and C. Foster. Salivary Cortisol Responses and Perceived Exertion During
High Intensity and Low Intensity Bouts of Resistance Exercise. J Sports Sci Med, 2004; 3: 8-15.
McGuigan, M. R., and M. K. Kane. Reliability of Performance of Elite Olympic Weightlifters. J Strength Cond
Res, 2004; 18: 650-3.
McGuigan, Michael R., and Carl Foster. A New Approach to Monitoring Resistance Training. Strength Cond
J, 2004; 26: 42-47.
McLean, B. D., et al. Neuromuscular, Endocrine, and Perceptual Fatigue Responses During Different Length
between-Match Microcycles in Professional Rugby League Players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform,
2010; 5: 367-83.
McLester, J. R., et al. A Series of Studies--a Practical Protocol for Testing Muscular Endurance Recovery. J
Strength Cond Res, 2003; 17: 259-73.
McNamara, J. M., and D. J. Stearne. Flexible Nonlinear Periodization in a Beginner College Weight Training
Class. J Strength Cond Res, 2010; 24: 2012-7.
Meeusen, R., et al. Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of the Overtraining Syndrome: Joint Consensus
Statement of the European College of Sport Science (ECSS) and the American College of Sports
Medicine (ACSM). Eur J Sport Sci, 2013; 13: 1-24.
Murphy, Aron J, et al. Isometric Assessment of Muscular Function: The Effect of Joint Angle. J Appl
Biomech, 1995; 11: 205-15.
Nunes, J. A., et al. Effects of Resistance Training Periodization on Performance and Salivary Immune-
Endocrine Responses of Elite Female Basketball Players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 2011; 51: 676-
82.
Ormsbee, M. J., et al. Efficacy of the Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion for the Bench
Press in Experienced and Novice Benchers. J Strength Cond Res, 2017; Published ahead of print.

Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 74/2020 http://www.johk.pl

by Helms ER et al. 41
Pageaux, B. Perception of Effort in Exercise Science: Definition, Measurement and Perspectives. Eur J Sport
Sci, 2016; 16: 885-94.
Papacosta, Elena, and George P. Nassis. Saliva as a Tool for Monitoring Steroid, Peptide and Immune
Markers in Sport and Exercise Science. J Sci Med Sport, 2011; 14: 424-34.
Pareja-Blanco, F., et al. Effects of Velocity Loss During Resistance Training on Athletic Performance, Strength
Gains and Muscle Adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2017; 27: 724-35.
Passelergue, P., A. Robert, and G. Lac. Salivary Cortisol and Testosterone Variations During an Official and a
Simulated Weight-Lifting Competition. Int J Sports Med, 1995; 16: 298-303.
Peterson, M. D., M. R. Rhea, and B. A. Alvar. Applications of the Dose-Response for Muscular Strength
Development: A Review of Meta-Analytic Efficacy and Reliability for Designing Training
Prescription. J Strength Cond Res, 2005; 19: 950-8.
Peterson, M. D., M. R. Rhea, and B. A. Alvar. Maximizing Strength Development in Athletes: A Meta-
Analysis to Determine the Dose-Response Relationship. J Strength Cond Res, 2004; 18: 377-82.
Pritchett, Robert C, et al. Acute and Session Rpe Responses During Resistance Training: Bouts to Failure at
60% and 90% of 1rm. S Afr J Sports Med, 2009; 21: 23-26.
Robertson, R. J., et al. Concurrent Validation of the Omni Perceived Exertion Scale for Resistance Exercise.
Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2003; 35: 333-41.
Rodriguez-Rosell, D., et al. Relationship between Velocity Loss and Repetitions in Reserve in the Bench Press
and Back Squat Exercises. J Strength Cond Res, 2019.
Sarwar, R., B. B. Niclos, and O. M. Rutherford. Changes in Muscle Strength, Relaxation Rate and
Fatiguability During the Human Menstrual Cycle. J Physiol, 1996; 493: 267-72.
Saw, Anna E, Luana C Main, and Paul B Gastin. Monitoring the Athlete Training Response: Subjective Self-
Reported Measures Trump Commonly Used Objective Measures: A Systematic Review. Br J Sports
Med, 2016; 50: 281-91.
Seo, Dong-il, et al. Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum Test Based on Muscle Group and Gender. J
Sports Sci Med, 2012; 11: 221-25.
Shetty, Anand B. Quantification of Selected Segmental Strengths in Weightlifting. J Strength Cond Res, 1990;
4: 37-41.
Shimano, T., et al. Relationship between the Number of Repetitions and Selected Percentages of One
Repetition Maximum in Free Weight Exercises in Trained and Untrained Men. J Strength Cond
Res, 2006; 20: 819-23.
Sikorski, E. M., et al. Changes in Perceived Recovery Status Scale Following High-Volume Muscle Damaging
Resistance Exercise. J Strength Cond Res, 2013; 27: 2079-85.
Sinclair, R. G. Normalizing the Performances of Athletes in Olympic Weightlifting. Can J Appl Sport Sci,
1985; 10: 94-8.
Spencer, Kirsten, and Mathew Croiss. The Effect of Increasing Loading on Powerlifting Movement Form
During the Squat and Deadlift. J Hum Sport Exerc, 2015; 10: 764-77.
Spitz, R. W., et al. Load-Velocity Relationships of the Back Vs. Front Squat Exercises in Resistance-Trained
Men. J Strength Cond Res, 2019; 33: 301-06.
Sweet, T. W., et al. Quantitation of Resistance Training Using the Session Rating of Perceived Exertion
Method. J Strength Cond Res, 2004; 18: 796-802.
Taylor, Richard. Interpretation of the Correlation Coefficient: A Basic Review. J Diagn Med Sonogr, 1990; 6:
35-39.
Testa, M., T. D. Noakes, and F. D. Desgorces. Training State Improves the Relationship between Rating of
Perceived Exertion and Relative Exercise Volume During Resistance Exercises. J Strength Cond
Res, 2012; 26: 2990-6.
Timmons, J. A. Variability in Training-Induced Skeletal Muscle Adaptation. J Appl Physiol, 2011; 110: 846-
53.
Velders, M., et al. Exercise Is a Potent Stimulus for Enhancing Circulating Dnase Activity. Clin Biochem,
2014; 47: 471-4.
Vizcaya, F. J., et al. Could the Deep Squat Jump Predict Weightlifting Performance? J Strength Cond Res,
2009; 23: 729-34.
Watkins, Casey M., et al. Determination of Vertical Jump as a Measure of Neuromuscular Readiness and

© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics

 42 Monitoring Resistance Training

Fatigue. J Strength Cond Res, 2017; 31: 3305-10.

Weakley, J., et al. The Effects of 10%, 20%, and 30% Velocity Loss Thresholds on Kinetic, Kinematic, and
Repetition Characteristics During the Barbell Back Squat. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 2019; 1-23.
Winborn, Mark D, Andrew W Meyers, and Carol Mulling. The Effects of Gender and Experience on
Perceived Exertion. J Sport Exerc Psychol, 1988; 10: 22-31.
Youssef, Omnia, et al. Reliability of Salivary Testosterone Measurements in Diagnosis of Polycystic Ovarian
Syndrome. East Fertil Soc J, 2010; 15: 183-87.
Zourdos, M. C., et al. Efficacy of Daily One-Repetition Maximum Training in Well-Trained Powerlifters and
Weightlifters: A Case Series. Nutr Hosp, 2015; 33: 437-43.
Zourdos, M. C., et al. Proximity to Failure and Total Repetitions Performed in a Set Influences Accuracy of
Intraset Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion. J Strength Cond Res, 2019;
Published Ahead of Print.
Zourdos, M. C., et al. The Repeated Bout Effect in Muscle-Specific Exercise Variations. J Strength Cond Res,
2015; 29: 2270-76.
Zourdos, M. C., et al. Modified Daily Undulating Periodization Model Produces Greater Performance Than a
Traditional Configuration in Powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res, 2016; 30: 784-91.
Zourdos, M. C., et al. Novel Resistance Training-Specific Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale Measuring
Repetitions in Reserve. J Strength Cond Res, 2016; 30: 267-75.

Corresponding author:

Eric Helms, PhD, CSCS

Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology
Level 2, AUT Milennium, 17 Antares Place, Rosedale, Auckland 0632,
New Zealand
Phone: + 64 9 921 9999 ext 6687
E-mail: eric.helms@aut.ac.nz

Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 74/2020 http://www.johk.pl

View publication stats